The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-09-25
DONSELLY'S THEORY.
Was the writer Of the shah espesisn
Plays . Pretcsssptr

acter was an orthodox Christian Or
an lubeliever, o Protestant er q
Catholic. 1t Is important, however,
that the truth should be established.
During the Elisabethan age there
was very little sincere faith Of any
kind, the common people were indii'
ferent, and the governing classes
were, as rule, guided BY policy, the
politicians being trinners in the
modern sense. This apathy origi-
mated with bllf Harry, and grew
with succeeding reigas. Under that
sovereign people knew net what 70
believe, the Pope.nonareh shifting
his religion as his passion prompted.
With Edward vi q shadow OF
Puritauism appeared, 70 vanish m
der Mary, who restored Catholicity.
When Elizabeth ascep ded to the
throne she was q firm believer in the
Catholic faith, but Q pressure was
brought to bear, not only by her per-
sonal advisers, but by mauy CONT
mental rulers, which fvrced her 20
adopted the new tenets. These va.
rious changes produced apathy aud
fatalism, among a large number, but,
no doubt, many secretly kept the
sparks OF the old faith from dying
out.
In Prof. Davidsos's synopsis OF
Mr.. Donpelly's argument aud dem.
onstratioa" IL is stated that Ole OF
the reasons for dethroning Shake
speare and elevating Bacon to his
place. is that the author of the plays
was undoubtedly q Protestant and
| Shakespeare, being q Ca, holic, could
not have written them. Volumes have
been published on both sides Of this
question, but here We have nothing
To- do with any arguments other than
those put forward by Mr.. Donnolly.
No careful reader Of Shakespeare
can fail to be impressed with the
dignity and piety Of the prelates and
friars introduced. The few instances
10 the contrary, a. in Henry
lVII and King John, are necos.
sary TO carry forward the action Of
the play, aud could not consistently
be treated otherwise. Ii is conceded
| by Shakespearian scholars that
Cranmer's speech in the last act OF
Henry VIII, was not written by
the same person who created the
characters Of Wolscy, Queen Gather
iue and the King. Some claim the
speech referred 10 Is an interpola-
ton : others claim that it was written
by Fletcher or some other friendly
hand. In citing King John as proof
OF the authors professionalism. 1t
should not be forgotten that the
, play. as we have il, was founded on
an older one, in which occurred
much testing ribaldry about the
, old faith, all Of which was carefully
. excluded by Shakespeare, who
. merely retained what was necessary
, 10 maintain interest and carry for.
1 ward the action oil the play. From
-. wh,t We know oil the Loudon people
= | at that day, any scoiiiug or TESTING al
lusien 10 the ceremonies OF the
4 church would be likely ~ "brinl
r down the house" aud IL would b
n difficult for non believer to 70
9 strain himself wteo writing tor th
q amusement Of such q people. Va
IL va find throughout the ShakespeaI
Il ian plays . well de6Dea belief 10
!. supreme being, q reverence Tor "a
- ceremonies aud ministers oil tn
q oburch-no doubtful phrase, n
" iatalism, but q slear and positiy
4 faith. Haulet's sollloquy Is quote
Iv as proof Of a belief 10 iatalism, bu
a every one who reads Hamlet correct
"a ly Knows that IL Is merely an erpres
"a sion Of his irrcs )lution, entirely Goa
"a sistcnt with the conception oil ths
nl sublime, IN ush erratio, charaote
r. from the outset. Perhaps no dogm
Ia OF the Catholic Church receive
no more hard kuorks at hat day tina
4. purgatory aad the confessional, "
nv one OF the most affecting scenes
10 Shak espeire's greaio't tragedy res
N. Oh A belief 10 these two doEmas.
I'd A child Of the authors heart AZ
~. soul is Priuso Haas prince, moi
Id arch, soldier and cobqurror no 9th
4, character in the whole range
mt Shakesperiau plays 20 clearly sho'
,at the loving hand aud hoart OF It's CT
nd stor. throughout no IL the faithl
nd and trusting FREUD Of the churc
he When he couceiyes the expedite
TO France, he calls around bin Z
Ieh diguitaiies Of the church Tor advi
' aud consultation. The ideal ieut
md monarch, tho cobqueror Oi Franz
no an and of the theme, 10 the eat
ycr sud at the cuuocll board, - eve
,,h faithful and reyorelt child OF I
as. church.
,cy Like all ioonoelIss, Mr.. Donne
al 10 an idolator, aud, after pull
hat Shakespeare down, ho essaysto pl'
.,e Bacon on the vacant throne. II
h a very absurd 20 assume, as Donns
al does. that Bacon used Shakospo
asa cover. Fletcher. Marlowe q
an. Rem Jonson knew Shakespeare W
in. anil, with some dozen Others, form
sci. little world OF their own. u
its reasonable 10 suppose that these
am innate friends, all boi3g mon oil
GO MUS. sero 40 devoid Of dis"ernm
,sc that they could MOI detect sue
! bs fraud, II IL existed2 Ben ions
ing who vas a great admirer OF Bac
II, and who knew him intimately, nc
me lost an opportunity oil pralsins
civ "gWeet Swan OF Avon. III ia
an; desired 10 hide himself behind
inc, other. Is IL at all probable that
n be would select Doinellys ShS
nisd speare, 10 ignorant tnat IL Is doub
aid II he could write bis namef
mos not more 10 accordance with
lied Known prudence Of the viscst
nssd the meaucs, Of mankind 20 So
nah one who could not be 40 readily
inter- iecled, his friend, Ben Jonson,
pro. instancef =,
nuss The truth Is, Mr.. Donnclly
,ould conceived 4 theory, and no must
=, els or make facts 20 sustain u. ia
nr.e although undoubtedly a benela
Sr,os 10 mankind. and the FIRST OF u
opef, philosophers, was OF the e
'on,t earthly" without . thought a
lam utility, without 4 heart or q 20
-. kt,u An the NhakfaDel